Politecnico di Torino

Porto Institutional Repository

[Proceeding] Rational and affordable concepts of Landing Gear for small

reentry vehicle demonstrators

Original Citation:
Cardile D.; Viola N.; Chiesa S.; Fioriti M. (2012). Rational and affordable concepts of Landing
Gear for small reentry vehicle demonstrators. In: 18th AIAA/3AF International Space Planes
and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Tours, France, 24 September 2012 - 28
September 2012.
Availability:
This version is available at : http://porto.polito.it/2503397/ since: October 2012
Publisher:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Published version:
DOI:10.2514/6.2012-5924
Terms of use:
This article is made available under terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Article
("Public - All rights reserved") , as described at http://porto.polito.it/terms_and_conditions.
html
Porto, the institutional repository of the Politecnico di Torino, is provided by the University Library
and the IT-Services. The aim is to enable open access to all the world. Please share with us how
this access benefits you. Your story matters.

(Article begins on next page)

 1

Rational and affordable concepts of Landing Gear for

small reentry vehicle demonstrators

S. Chiesa1, D. Cardile2, M. Fioriti3, and N. Viola4

Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy, 10129

The paper proposes an innovative solution for landing gear of small space vehicles, in particular
of technological demonstrators of reentry space vehicles. After explaining why small space vehicles
can benefit from landing gears, the work investigates a solution, which avoids the use of fluidic
systems and minimizes constraints on the whole vehicle, thus limiting cost raising and making the
installation of the landing gear easier on vehicles that originally did not envisage landing gears.

Nomenclature
b = Length of the leaf spring side perpendicular to the deflection plane
bE = Length of the side perpendicular to the deflection plane at the free end of the leaf spring
bR = Length of the side perpendicular to the deflection plane at the root of the leaf spring
CoG = Center of Gravity
E = Elastic modulus
f = Deflection
Fbraking = Braking Force
FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation
g = Acceleration of gravity
GNC = Guidance Navigation and Control
h = Leaf spring thickness
H = Distance from Center of Gravity to the Runway
I = Moment of inertia
K2 = Section ratio
Kb = Non linearity effects coefficient
Kfl = Lateral friction coefficient of the tire
Kl = Landing load factor
l = Length of the leaf spring
L = Lift
Lwb = Wheel Base
LDG = Landing Gear
M = Bending moment
MLDG = Main Landing Gear
nM = Distance from Main Gear to the Center of Gravity
nN = Distance from Nose Gear to the Center of Gravity
N = Landing gear load factor
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NLDG = Nose Landing Gear
RMLDG = Force on Main Landing Gear
RNLDG = Force on Nose Landing Gear
RRV = Reference Re-entry Vehicle
S = Leaf spring vertical displacement
S0 = Leaf spring horizontal displacement
1
Full Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, sergio.chiesa@polito.it.
2
PhD Student, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, diego.cardile@polito.it.
3
Researcher, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, marco.fioriti@polito.it.
4
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, nicole.viola@polito.it.
 2

Sw = Compression of the tire

Tf = Taper Factor
TRL = Technology Readiness Level
UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
US = United States
Vz = Vertical speed
W = Maximum landing weight of the vehicle in static condition
ζ = Landing gear’s maximum acceptable percentage of height lost during compression
θ = Angle between the leaf spring and the horizontal direction
σamm = Yield stress
X = Acceleration

I.Introduction

W
future
ITHIN the vast framework of
activities for the development of
reliable trans-atmospheric
transport vehicles, nowadays great
efforts are directed towards
technological demonstrators of the same
vehicles on a reduced scale1,2. Many of
these technological demonstrators aim at
developing, testing and validating quite a
few technologies that have not reached
yet the necessary TRL level. In this
context we believe that a dramatic
improvement could be represented by
the use of landing gears, in order to
make the technological demonstrator
land like an airplane on the runway, thus Figure 1. Small reentry vehicle landing gear influences and
verifying this fundamental capability for constraints
future space vehicles and studying more
into details all issues related to GNC. With the aim of making the development, test and validation of innovative
applications of landing gears easier, the paper presents a concept of a particularly simple landing gear for small
technological demonstrators of reentry vehicles.
As the relationship diagram depicted in Fig. 1 shows, the landing gear has to be integrated with the technological
demonstrator and correctly sized to bear landing loads, by elastically absorbing the vertical kinetic energy of the
vehicle at touchdown and by dissipating it. As far as the integration of the landing gear with the vehicle is
concerned, two issues deserve particular attention: the cavity inside the vehicle to stow the retracted landing gear
and the structural discontinuities to let the landing gear be extracted. The concept of landing gear presented in the
paper is characterized more by the capability of adapting to the vehicle’s structural configuration rather than by the
necessity of constraining it. If we think of costs, there are two considerations that may enhance affordability of
landing gears of small technological demonstrators: as small technological demonstrators do not generally take-off
autonomously (being transported to orbit by launcher vehicles), the landing gear does not have to be retracted,
whereas its extension during approach and landing occurs thanks mainly to gravity, therefore avoiding the use of
dedicated actuators; the use of fluidic shock absorbers could be avoided as well. Taking these considerations into
account, a good solution for the landing gear of small technological demonstrators of re-entry vehicles appears to be
the leaf spring landing gear3, typical of light aircraft, where dissipation of aircraft vertical kinetic energy is given by
the tires’ side scrubbing4, caused by the leaf spring deflection. An alternative solution could be the rubber disk or
steel spring shock absorber which are able to dissipate the touchdown energy by the internal attrition between,
respectively, the disks or the spring rings. If fluidic shock absorbers and generally fluidic systems shall be avoided,
the use of electric brakes acting on the wheels of the main landing gear appears to be quite obvious. The differential
activation of these brakes allows turning the small vehicle on ground. Therefore, as the specific capability of on
ground maneuvering shall not be required for this type of vehicle, the steering function of the nose landing gear shall
not be implemented.
 3

Eventually we can say that the design of the landing gear seems to be driven mainly by those elements that have
to perform the functions of absorbing and damping landing loads. These elements shall seriously affect both the
configuration and the sizing of the landing gear and, consequently, the sizing of the cavity inside the vehicle, where
the landing gear has to be stowed when retracted.

II.General landing gear configuration

As it is well known, the landing gear arrangement
consists of at least three struts with at least one wheel each.
Landing gear’s struts have to be at least three because they
have to define an area, within which the vertical projection
of the vehicle’s center of gravity (CoG) has to fall with
adequate margins, in order to avoid the risk for the vehicle
to turn over during taxi, as shown in Fig. 2.
Apart from the movement of the vehicle on ground
during taxi, during touchdown the landing gear has to be Figure 2. Landing Gear elements location vs
able to absorb the vehicle’s vertical kinetic energy, without
generating excessively high loads on the vehicle’s
structure, specifically on the landing gear’s joints to the
vehicle’s structure. During touchdown the vehicle’s
vertical kinetic energy has to be absorbed but also
dissipated by the landing gear, in order to avoid vehicle’s
bounces (an undesirable phenomenon which in the past led Figure 3. Main LDG elements position and Tail
to catastrophic events). As well as during taxi, also during Cone Clearance
touchdown it is extremely important that the vehicle does
not turn over, taking also into account the high value of the vehicle’s attitude at touchdown, in order to minimize
vehicle’s speed. As at touchdown the contact between the vehicle and the ground occurs first through the rear
wheels of the landing gear, there is the need for an adequate clearance between the ground and the back of the
vehicle (tail cone), as shown in Fig. 3. The fact that the rear wheels (main elements) of the landing gear touch first
the ground has led to the following choices:
a) the main elements of the landing gear have to be at least two, in order to guarantee the vehicle’s lateral
stability not only during taxi but also during touchdown, when the vehicle touches the ground with one of the two
main element first, as it is not in level flight;
b) the two main elements are bigger than the third element (Nose Landing Gear), located in a central, fore
position, as the main elements are in charge of absorbing most of the vertical kinetic energy at touchdown;
c) the main elements, located behind the vehicle’s CoG, have to be as close as possible to the vehicle’s CoG for
the very same reasons mentioned above but they have however to guarantee that the vertical projection of the
vehicle’s CoG falls inside the area defined by the landing gear ground contact points in every mission phase,
included landing when the vehicle flies at high angle of attack at touchdown (see Fig. 3);
d) taking into account the above mentioned
configuration, after the very first touchdown, the vehicle Table 1. Martin Marietta X24A Technical Data
rotates around the axis of the wheels’ contact with ground Crew 1
until the Nose Landing Gear touches the ground and the Length 7.47 m
vehicle starts the deceleration phase, in order to dissipate Wingspan 3.51 m
also the horizontal kinetic energy, connected to the Height 2.92 m
horizontal component of the vehicle’s speed at touchdown Wing area 18.1 m²
(definitely higher than the vertical kinetic energy at Empty weight 2,885 kg
touchdown). Loaded weight 4,853 kg
Max. takeoff weight 5,192 kg
III.Review of technical solutions for landing gear’s 1xReaction Motor XLR-11rs
Power plant
reentry space vehicles rocket engine, 37.7 kN
The use of landing gears for reentry space vehicles is Maximum speed 1,667 km/h
not a new idea, since a few examples, especially in US, do Range 72 km
already exist. However the purpose of the paper is to let Service ceiling 21,763 m
the technology of landing gears come closer to other Wing loading 288 kg/m²
countries and other agencies that, notwithstanding their Thrust/weight 0.70
 4

work in the space field, have not yet gathered a great deal of experience in landing gears for reentry vehicles.
These examples represent a fundamental base of knowledge, the real starting point to build up new and original
solutions for landing gears of reentry space vehicles. Studying and understanding what has already been designed
and developed is in fact crucial to elaborate innovative ideas. This section deals therefore with a review of the most
significant examples of reentry space vehicles with landing gear. Only small size vehicles have been considered.
The first vehicle of this brief review is Martin Marietta X24A, whose main technical data are listed in Table 1.
Figure 4a) shows the three view drawing of Martin Marietta X24A, whereas Fig. 4b) illustrates the internal layout of
its subsystems. Martin Marietta X24A was developed at the end of 1960s mainly to study the aerodynamic behavior
of lifting body configurations. Its landing weight was a bit less than three tons. It was a manned vehicle with one
pilot on-board. The configuration of its landing gear was very similar to those used for aircraft with the retraction of
the landing gear rearward along planes parallel to the plane of vehicle’s longitudinal symmetry. Thanks to the wide
fuselage, the wheel track is good and the retraction is fairly easy without any interference with the wing structure.

Figure 4a). Martin Marietta X24A Figure 4b). Martin Marietta X24A internal
systems

The second vehicle that we have been taken into Table 2. Lockheed X24C Technical Data
consideration is Lockheed X24C, which was a project to Length 22.81 m
fatherly develop Martin Marietta X24A by enhancing its Wingspan 7.37 m
capability of extremely high speed of flight. Wing area 53 m² (estimated)
Main technical data of Lockheed X24C are reported in Height 6.27 m
Table 2. Figure 5a) shows the three view drawing of Crew 1
Lockheed X24C, whereas Fig. 5b) illustrates the internal Gross weight 29934 kg
layout of its subsystems. The same considerations made for Empty weight 9691 kg
the previous vehicle, still apply to Lockheed X24C, which Max altitude 28042 m
is very streamlined. Max speed 7170 km/h

Figure 5a). Lockheed X24C Figure 5b). Lockheed X24C internal arrangement
 5

The third vehiclee that we have h been taaken into Table 3. Orbbital Sciencess X-34 Techn nical Data
consideraation is Orbbital Sciencees X-34, whhich was Length 17..78 m
designed as technoloogical demonnstrator of hypersonic
h Wingsppan 8.4
43 m
reentry and
a landing on o runways. Orbital Sciennces X-34 Wing area
a 33.21 m²
w times but the program
was reallly constructedd and flew few Height 3..5 m
was eveentually canccelled by NASA in 20001. Main Gross weight
w 213319 kg
technicall data of Orbbital Sciencess X-34 are reeported in Empty weight 7711 kg
Table 3. Figure 6a) shows the three view drrawing of Range 885 km
Orbital Sciences
S X-34, whereas Fig.
F 6b) illusstrates the Max alttitude 762200 m
internal layout
l of its subsystems. Orbital
O Sciencces X -34 Max sppeed 8626 6 km/h
was an unmanned veehicle and itts landing weight was
consideraably high, if compared to the landing weights
w of
small technological deemonstrators.
The landing gear of o Orbital Scieences X-34 haas a traditionaal configuratio
on, very simillar to landing gears of civill
transportt aircraft. As Fig.
F 6b) showss that the mainn landing gearr elements aree located behinnd wing main n structure andd
are retraccted sidewise, thus having a simple solutiion with a verry good wheell track.

Figure 6a). Orbital Sciences X -34

-

Figure 6b).. Orbital Scieences X -34 in

nternal arran
ngement

Boeinng X-37 (see Fig.

F 7b) and Table
T 4) and Boeing
B X-40 ((see Fig. Table 4. Boein
T ng X–37 techn
nical data
8 and Taable 5), whicch are very close
c in time, are both unnmanned L
Length 8.38 m
vehicles and have bboth small size s and redduced weightt. Their G
Gross weight 5443 kg
configuraations are sim
milar, as Boeingg X-40, whichh is a little bitt smaller E
Empty weight ? kg
than Boeing X-37, hass been designeed as technological demonsttrator of W
Wing span 4.57 m
Boeing X-37.
X In parrticular, Boeinng X-40, whhich is deplooyed by W
Wing area 7 m²
helicopteers, aims at innvestigating thhe landing mission
m phase. Boeing M
Mach 25
X-37 hass been launchhed twice by ATLAS
A V lauuncher vehiclee. It has
orbited around
a the Earth
E and haas eventuallyy landed com mpletely
autonomoously. As Figg. 7b) and Fig. 8 show, the landing gearss, which Table 5. Boein
T ng X – 40 tech
hnical data
have a trraditional configuration, aree located on the
t fuselage sside and L
Length 6.7 m
are retraccted through a forward rotaation along thhe longitudinaal plane, L
Length (w/piloot) 6.7 m
as the innternal arrangeement of Boeeing X-37 in Fig. 7a) show ws for a W
Wingspan 3.5 m
study of a future mannned version. W
Wing area 3.86 m²
H
Height 2.2 m
G
Gross weight 1200 kg
E
Empty weight ? kg
R
Range ? km
M altitude
Max 2743 m
M speed
Max 1
1609 km/h

Figure 7a). Booeing X-37 Internal arranggement

 6

Figure 7b). Boeing X-37 Figure 8. Boeing X-40

As last example of reentry space vehicle equipped with

landing gear, Fig. 9 shows the so-called “Dream Chaser”, Table 6. NASA Dream Chaser technical data
which is the first example of commercial space transport Length 9m
vehicle currently under way. The Dream Chaser may be Wingspan 7m
injected into orbit by ATLAS V launcher vehicle and may Mass 11340 kg
carry up to seven people on board. After orbiting around
Crew Up to 7
the Earth, it will land on runways autonomously. As
Endurance 210 days
reported in Table 6, the weight of Dream Chaser will be
Re-entry “g” <1.5
not too higher than that of Boeing X-37, whereas its
configuration reminds some features of the first Lifting
Bodies, like the X-24a (and this is true also for the
configuration of the landing gear).
In brief, on the basis of the analyses of past projects, it is clear that the general configuration, which may be
suitable for the landing gear of a technological demonstrator of a future reentry vehicle of small size, should be
traditional. However we believe that some innovative solutions should be investigated, in order to pursue the
fundamental objectives of reduced cost and reduced impact on the whole vehicle, according to requirements
mentioned in section I.

Figure 9. NASA Dream Chaser

 7

IV.A simple solution: the Leaf Spring Landing Gear

A. General overview
The Leaf Spring Landing Gear consists of one elastic element, which is the leg of
MLDG elements itself. As shown in Fig. 10, when the wheel touches the ground, the
leg deflects elastically and the lateral movement of the tire (toward the outside when
the leaf spring is deflected and toward the inside when the spring straightens to the
static load position) damps the vertical energy of the whole vehicle at touchdown,
thanks to its high lateral friction coefficient.
The elastic element, i.e. the landing gear leg, may be either a box-type beam or a
metal leaf, from which the name Leaf Spring derives.

B. Examples
The Leaf Spring Landing Gear is very simple and this feature implies low cost
and high reliability. These two fundamental characteristics are the reasons of the
Figure 10. Leaf Spring
widespread use of the Leaf Spring Landing Gear in light and ultralight aircraft. Main
disadvantages of this type of landing gear are its size and consequently its volume, Landing Gear
which makes it not retractable in light and ultralight aircraft, and the rapid wear of
the tire, because of the aforesaid lateral displacement. It is worth noting that the latter disadvantage appears to be not
so critical for vehicles that are not continuously operative and certainly not so important for reentry space vehicles.
However, thinking of reentry space vehicles, the Leaf Spring Landing Gear can be adopted only if retractable into a
cavity that has the least effect on basic airframe structure and this goal can be reached simply by considering a linear
and not a curved elastic element. Examples of this solution are a few recent Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), like
the well know General Atomics Predator A (illustrated in Fig. 11a) and Fig. 11b)) e General Atomic Predator B
(illustrated in Fig. 12a) and Fig. 12b)). Main technical data of these two UAV are summarized in Table 7 and Table
8. Eventually Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 show respectively that the landing gear of Predator A and Predator B is stowed in a
very small cavity when retracted.

Figure 11a). General Atomics “Predator” A

Table 7. G.A. “Predator” A technical data

Length 22 m
Wing span 14.8 m
High 1.82 m
Wing area 11.5 m²
Empty weight 512 kg
Max weight 952 kg / 1020 kg
Rotax 912 (o 914) 4
Power plant
cylinders
Figure 11b. General Atomics “Predator” A Power 100 CV / 115 CV
Maximum speed 217 km/h
Range 926 km
Maximum altitude 7800 m
 8

Figure 12a). General Atomics “Predator” B

Table 8. G.A. “Predator” B technical data

Length 10.97 m
Wingspan 20.12 m
Height 3.56 m
Weight max 4540 kg
Weight empty 1380 kg
Speed > 405 km/h
Ceiling 15200 m
Endurance > 24 h
Honeywell TPE-331-
Power plant
10T turboprop
Power 670 kW
Figure 12b). General Atomics “Predator” B

Figure 13. Predator A landing gear retraction Figure 14. Predator B landing gear retraction
vanes vanes
 9

C. Calculation model
As it usually happens during the design process, once
qualitative choices are made, quantitative analyses begin
to correctly size and verify the concept, in order to
validate and eventually adopt the solution. Quantitative
analyses start from the definition of the various
requirements that drive the design of the Leaf Spring
Landing Gear. Within requirements, initial data,
hypotheses and constraints have also to be determined
(see Fig. 15 and Fig. 16). For the design of every type of
landing gear, one of the most important requirements is
the capability of the vehicle of sustaining the loads
transmitted by the Main Landing Gear elements at Figure 15. LDG loads (in static conditions and at
touchdown. As shown in Fig. 15 during landing the Main Landing)
Landing Gear transmits to the vehicle’s structure a load
equal to W multiplied by N, where W is the maximum
landing weight of the vehicle in static condition and N is
the landing gear load factor, expressed as number of g
(acceleration of gravity), in order to consider the
deceleration of the vehicle along the vertical axis (which
in Aeronautics may range between 2,5 for commercial
transport aircraft and 9 for fighter aircraft). The extra-
load (this load comprises the static load plus the dynamic
reaction load) experienced by the vehicle at touchdown is
due to vertical speed Vz of the vehicle at touchdown,
which is related both to the aeromechanical
characteristics of the vehicle itself and to the trajectory
chosen for landing. This vertical speed may therefore be Figure 16. MLDG element, unloaded and at
constrained by rules of Airworthiness Regulations (see touchdown
Table 95).
Table 9. Vertical Speed at Landing

Taking now into account Fig. 16, we can say that the geometry of the Leaf Spring Main Landing Gear is defined
by the length of the leaf spring, l, and by the angle, θ, between the leaf spring and the horizontal direction. During
flight, i.e. when the Main Landing Gear is unloaded, the angle θ is pretty close to 45°, as the pictures of Predator
show. At touchdown the leaf spring is deflected upwards because of the loads applied to the wheel. Immediately
after touchdown the vertical component of leaf deflection progressively increases up to a certain value S (see Fig.
NW
16), which corresponds to the maximum load applied to wheel and equal to , in case of symmetric landing on
2
the two main landing gear elements. As shown in Fig. 16, S is the vertical component of deflection, f, of the leaf
spring, which is considered as a beam with one end built in and the free end with the load. As first approximation,
the relationship between S and f is given by:
 10

S = f cos θ (1)

The horizontal displacement, S0, of the leaf spring (i.e. the wheel) is given by:

S0 = S tanθ Kb (2)

where the coefficient Kb is slightly less than one to take into account non linearity effects.
The total vertical deflection experienced by the leaf spring is given by the sum of S and Sw, which expresses the
compression of the tire, as follows:

Stot = f cosθ + S w (3)

It is worth noting that Sw has no effect on S0.

Inputs of the sizing activity of the Leaf Spring Landing Gear are
therefore W, l and θ, which come respectively from the vehicle’s
global characteristics and the landing gear’s geometry, and Vz, sink
speed at touchdown, N, landing load factor and Kl, the ratio
between the mean value of lift, L, during leaf spring compression
and weight W. All these three last inputs may be established by
Airworthiness Regulations .As far as the sink speed at touchdown,
Vz, is concerned, there is no doubt that its value derives from
Regulations. As far as the landing load factor, N, is concerned, in
order to optimize the whole vehicle, its value may be considered not
too far from the maximum values for the load factor required by
Regulations (if applicable). Eventually as far as the ratio Kl, which
takes into account that during the deflection of the main landing
gear elements the vehicle tends to pitch down (because of the
forward position of the CoG), thus reducing the angle of attack and
therefore the lift, the value of Kl shall not normally exceed 2/3
according to Regulations.
Other characteristics of the leaf spring that have to be
considered are its material (there are examples of leaf spring made
of steel, aluminum alloy or composite materials) and the shape of
its section. Apart from the example of the box beam, adopted by Figure 17 Leaf spring geometry gear
Predators, the section of the leaf spring is normally rectangular with
a “b” side (see Fig. 17) perpendicular to the deflection plane and the thickness, indicated by the letter h in Fig. 17.
The section ratio, K2, is given by:

b (4)
K2 =
h

Figure 17 shows that usually b is not constant but it varies

linearly with the leaf spring length, ranging from a maximum value
bR at the fixed end to bE at the free end of the beam. The tapered
beam has the advantage of reducing the mass of the beam itself
towards the free end, where the bending stress also decreases. This
implies a reduction of weight, even though the loads sustained are
the same, and an increase of f and therefore of S and this is why this
solution is frequently adopted (see Fig. 18).
Once all inputs of the sizing activity have been defined, all
various requirements may be expressed mathematically and then in
a graph, which has S on the x-axis and h on the y-axis. S and h are
the values that have to be determined: Figure 18. example of tapered leaf
Geometrical restriction on deflection shall be taken into account spring landing gear
 11

(Requirement n° 1). Apart from the obvious capability of the leaf spring, considered as bend beam, of high
deflection, the deflection of the landing gear cannot exceed a certain value, in order not to let the vehicle get too
close to the ground, thus compromising the tail cone clearance (see Fig. 3). This constraint may by expressed as a
function of ζ, i.e. the portion of vehicle’s height (or landing gear’s height) that is lost during compression:

S =< l sen θ ς (5)

On the S-h graph (see Fig. 19) Requirement 1 is a vertical line that excludes all values of S that do not satisfy
Eq. (5).
The vehicle’s vertical energy at touchdown shall be absorbed (Requirement n° 2). The energy absorbed by the
leaf spring is equal to half the product of maximum vertical deflection and corresponding maximum force of
deflection. The energy that can be absorbed by the leaf spring has to be at least equal to the sum of the vertical
kinetic energy of the vehicle at touchdown, of the work done, during deflection, by the weight W minus the work
done, during deflection by the lift L.

1 1 W (6)
SNW >= V z2 + WS − LS
2 2 9.81

By introducing the ratio L/W and eliminating W, Eq. (6) may be rewritten as follows:

V z2
S >= 2 ⋅ 9.81 (7)
0.5 N − 1 − K 1

On the S-h graph (see Fig. 19) Requirement 2 is a vertical line that excludes all values of S that do not satisfy Eq.
(7). It is worth noting that Eq. (6) does not take into account the compression of the tire when loaded. This
simplifying expression is however acceptable as the energy absorbed by the compression of the tire could be
considered as an additional term for Eq. (7), which would make Requirement n° 2 less strict. However, it has to be
remembered that, thanks to the energy absorbed by the tire, the vertical component of the leaf spring deflection
would be a bit less than that of Eq. (7).
The beam shall be able to deflect (Requirement n° 3). The capability of deforming elastically of the leaf spring,
thus making the required vertical deflection S possible, is related to the deflection f of the free end of the beam, as
shown in Fig. 16. Remembering that the vertical deflection of the beam is given by Eq. (1) and that the bending
moment acting on the beam is due to the application of the force NW cos θ (component of the load perpendicular to
2
the axis of the beam) to the free end of the beam, considering the expression of the deflection of the free end of the
beam with a constant section:

4 Ml 2 (8)
f =
Ebh 3

where there is the elastic modulus of the material, E, and the moment of inertia of the rectangular section is
expressed as follows:

bh 3 (9)
I =
12

The deflection, f, can be expressed as follows:

W
4N cosθl 3
S 2
f = = (10)
cosθ Ebh 3

Introducing K2 (see Eq. (4)) and expressing h, Eq. (10) becomes:

 12

4N
W
(cosθ )2 l 3
h =
4 2 (11)
ESK2

Eventually Eq. (11) may be rewritten as:

K3
h= (12)
S 0 .25

Requirement n° 3 may be expressed on the S-h graph (see Fig. 19) by means of a slightly concave curve which
decreases when S increases. This means that per each value of S there is an upper limit to the value of h. It is worth
noting that Eq. (12) considers the section of the Leaf Spring constant, whereas the Leaf Spring is usually tapered, in
order to better exploit the material with a reduction of weight and a higher deflection. Making the hypothesis, for
sake of simplicity, of considering the Leaf Spring as a triangular tapered beam (referring to Fig. 17, you may make
the hypothesis of considering the following variation of b: b = b ( X ) , specifically b = ( b R ) X , where bR is given by
l
b R = K 2 h , according to Eq. (4)) and remembering that Eq. (8) derives from the integration of the increment of
deflection along one finite element of the beam dX, df is given by:

MX (13)
df = dX
EI

Expressing the bending moment M as M = PX , the moment of inertia I according to Eq. (9) and b as a function
of X, Eq. 13 may be rewritten as follows:

12 PX 2 (14)
df = dX
b
E r Xh 3
l

Integrating Eq. (14) we obtain:

6 Ml 2
f = (15)
Eb r h 3

By comparing Eq. (15) with Eq. (8), we understand that, if we consider all other parameters equal, the tapered
Leaf Spring (with b=0 at the free end) increases its deflection by 50%. Eq. (10) and consequently Eq. (12) may
therefore be multiplied by a so-called “Taper Factor”, Tf, which ranges between 1 (not tapered beam) and 1,5
(tapered beam with b=0 at the free end). This last case appears to be not so easily produced because of the practical
need of connecting the wheel and the Leaf Spring. However, as shown in Fig. 19, reality is not that far from that
extreme and taper factor equal to 1,3 may be acceptable. Eventually Requirement n°3 may be recalculated and a new
curve in the S-h graph can be drawn.
The Leaf Spring shall be able not to deform plastically (Requirement n° 4). We consider the well known
relationship of the maximum stress acting on the end of the beam opposite to the free one, where the bending
moment has the highest value:

σ amm =  6 N
 W 
(
cos θ l  br h 2 ) (16)
 2 

By introducing K2, Eq. (16) becomes:


σ amm =  6 N
W
cos θ (

l  K 2h3 ) (17)
 2 
 13

Expressing h, we get:

h = K4
0.333
(18)

Requirement n° 4 is represented through Eq. (18) on the S-h graph (see Fig. 19) and it is an horizontal straight
line, which excludes the lower values of h.
The absorbed energy shall be damped (Requirement n° 5). This last requirement focuses on the lateral
displacement of the wheel, which moves first toward the outside, during the leaf spring deflection, and then
internally, when the leaf spring straightens itself. Thanks to the lateral displacement of the wheel that produces
attrition with the ground, the leaf spring shall be able to damp the vehicle’s vertical kinetic energy at touchdown. It
is worth noting that the work done by the vertical deflection S and the weight W is absorbed during deflection and is
returned part as the work done to make the weight move up to the height of the landing gear in static conditions and
part as the residual potential energy of the CoG position in static conditions. The energy damped by the hysteresis of
the tire during compression and successive extension is negligible. However taking into account this energy would
just make the satisfaction of requirement n° 5 easier. In order to express mathematically this requirement, let us
consider the two movements of the wheels first during compression and then during extension. In the first case the
displacement is equal to S0, as defined in Eq. (2), with a mean load acting on each single wheel given by the mean
value between zero (at touchdown and therefore at the beginning of the movement of the wheel towards the outside)
and NW (when compression is complete). In the second case the movement is reduced because of the deflection in
2
static conditions at the end of the extension. This movement may be evaluated, as first approximation, as
S 0 ( N − 1) W
, whereas the mean load is given by the mean value between NW and . By introducing the lateral
N 2 2
friction coefficient of the tire Kfl and by considering both main landing gear elements, we get:

 N (N + 1) (N - 1)  1 W 2
S W K b K fl  +  >= Vz (19)
 2 2 N  2 9.81

If we delete W, Eq. (19) may be rewritten as follows:

 1 
 Vz 
2
 2 9.81 
S >=   (20)
 N (N + 1) (N - 1) 
K b K fl  + 
2 2 N 

In the S-h graph Requirement n°5 is therefore expressed by Eq. (20) as a vertical line, which tells us that S
cannot be lower than the value given the member on the right hand side of Eq. (20). The constraint represented by
Requirement n° 5 could become stricter (by introducing a coefficient in Eq. (20) a bit bigger than one), if we
considered the compression of the tire, which would imply a reduction of the vertical deflection S of the leaf spring
and therefore a reduction of S0,
Figure 19 shows all five requirements on the S-h graph and highlights an area of compatibility, colored in grey in
the figure. Figure 20 shows how design choices affect requirements, making them more or less severe for a design
solution (S and h).
 14

h[m]
2 1
5

S[mm]
Figure 19. Graphical display of landing gear Figure 20. Influences of design parameters on
requirements requirements

V.Application of the Leaf Spring Landing Gear to a Space Reentry Vehicle

A. Leaf Spring landing gear sizing

Before starting any activity of landing gear sizing, it is absolutely necessary to define the reentry vehicle which
will be equipped with landing gear. As the present paper aims at presenting a general methodology, not specifically
applied to any reentry vehicles, we consider a hypothetical reentry vehicle (Reference Re-entry Vehicle, RRV) of
such small size that the vehicle could be launched by VEGA launcher. Figure 21 shows RRV configuration, whereas
Table 10 reports its main technical data.

Table 10. Reference Reentry Vehicle

Technical Data
Length 4.5 m
High 1.2 m
Wingspan 3.2 m
Wing area 6.45 m2
Mass 2000 kg
W/S 310 kg/m2
Reference
VEGA
Launcher

Figure 21. Reference Re-entry Vehicle configuration

Among main design data of every flying vehicle, it is extremely important the capability of bearing the loads
transmitted to the vehicle by the main landing gear elements at touchdown. As already mentioned and shown in Fig.
15 the main landing gear elements during landing transmit to the vehicle’s structure a load equal to the product of
the weight, sustained by the vehicle in static conditions, and N. Remembering that N is the number of “g” to define
 15

the deceleration of the vehicle along the vertical axis and taking into account that the maximum value of N in
Aeronautics ranges between 2.5 (civil transport aircraft) and 9 (fighters), in our case we may choose:

N =3 (21)

As far as the vertical velocity Vz is concerned, Airworthiness Regulations shall be applied (see Table 10, Ref. 5).
Taking into account the RRV size and the fact that RRV is an unmanned vehicle, FAR 23 (General Aviation) may
be considered as applicable regulations. Considering the minimum required value, we get:

V z = 7 ft/s = 2.13 m/s (22)

We can now proceed to make a hypothesis on the size of a main landing gear element of the same type as that
shown in Fig. 16. Choosing l equal to 1200 mm and θ equal to 45°, we get a wheel track that is much better (for the
probability of successful landing) than those of the other reentry vehicles in section III. Other assumptions are: Kl
equal to 0.66, according to regulations; K2, applied to the built in end section, equal to 6.6; the value of ζ is equal to
0.5 (percentage of compression which is acceptable with respect to the height of the vehicle); the characteristics of
the material (we consider maraging steel6,7 for the leaf spring), i.e. E, equal to 186000 N/mm2; σamm equal to 1400
N/mm2; all other technical characteristics of the RRV. Considering all these assumptions, the application of Eq. (5)-
(7)-(12)-(18)-(20) is shown in Fig. 22.
As it can be seen in Fig. 22, there is an area of compatibility, on the basis of which we can choose, as design
solution, h equal to 26 mm. In case of severe landing, with the maximum value for Vz (according to Eq. (23)) and
consequently the maximum load factor N (according to Eq. (21)), all requirements will be met with adequate
margin, except Requirement n° 4, which appears to be matched with limited margin, as usually happens in the
aerospace field. In case of les severe landings, it is quite obvious that all requirements will be matched. Eventually it
is worth noting that the small area of compatibility indicates compliancy of requirements.

Figure 22. Sizing of leaf spring Landing Gear for RRV

 16

B. FEM validation
In order to validate the results, the Leaf Spring has been evaluated through a FEM analysis, assuming h equal to
26 mm, Vz equal to 2.13 m/s and N equal to 3, for severe landings. The material considered for the leaf spring is
maraging steel (Poisson module E=186000 N/mm2 and σamm=1400 N/mm2).
In order to perform FEM analyses, a 3D CAD model has been developed as the basis for the FEM model. Figure
23 shows the reference geometry. The leaf spring consists of a tapered plate of constant thickness (h=26 mm), with
the longest side equal to 171.6 mm and the shortest side equal to 60 mm. The length of the longest side is defined by
the ratio of the thickness h and the longest side itself ( K 2 = br = 6.6 ). The FEM model has been developed with a
h
linear Octree tetraedric mesh with a global size of 20 mm. Figure 24 shows the mesh of the leaf spring, the
constraint condition and the load condition. The leaf spring is built in beam. The load condition corresponds to a
distributed force applied to the thickness of the minor base of the beam with total magnitude equal to 29430 N.
Figure 25 and Fig. 26 show the results of the FEM analysis. The vertical displacement at the free end of the Leaf
Spring is equal to 215 mm, whereas from Fig. 22 and Requirement n° 3 we get a deflection equal to 240 mm, which
is about 10% higher than the value obtained by FEM analysis and therefore still acceptable. The highest stress in the
built in end section is 1338 N/mm2, which is lower than the value of σamm (yield stress) of the chosen material. Once
that the FEM analysis is over and the leaf spring adequately matches requirements, it is important to evaluate its
mass, which, starting from the volume equal to 3600 cm3 and considering the specific weight of the steel equal to
7.8 g/cm3, is equal to 28.1 kg per each leaf spring.

Figure 23. Leaf spring geometry Figure 24 FEM mesh model

 17

Figure 25. FEM analysis result - displacements Figure 26. FEM analysis result - stress

C. Nose Landing Gear

The Main Landing Gear is without any doubts the most important part of the entire landing gear system and for
this reason we have focused our attention on it, also because the adoption of the Leaf Spring landing gear for a
reentry vehicle is quite unusual. However, for sake of completeness, in this sub-section we also deal briefly with the
Nose Landing Gear. First of all it is worth noting that the Leaf Spring cannot be adopted for the Nose Landing Gear,
as the lateral displacement of the tire cannot be used to damp the energy absorbed during the impact of the wheel
with the ground. In fact, the Nose Landing Gear, besides guaranteeing stability and maneuvering of the vehicle
when it is moving on ground, works also during landing and during the successive deceleration phase. The loads
acting on the Nose Landing Gear during these two phases are useful to size the landing gear itself. In fact, even if
the correct landing envisages that the vehicle’s vertical kinetic energy is absorbed and damped only by the main
landing gear, it may happen that part of the vehicle’s vertical kinetic energy could be absorbed by the nose landing
gear. This situation may occur for instance during landing (in case the landing maneuver is not correctly performed)
when the nose landing gear touches the ground before the main landing gear has absorbed all vehicle’s vertical
kinetic energy. The so-called level landing, defined by Airworthiness Regulations as the landing maneuver when the
main landing gear and the nose landing gear touch the ground simultaneously, is the operative scenario considered
for the nose landing gear sizing. In this case, referring to Fig. 15 and considering the weight W multiplied by the
load factor N, the force acting on the nose landing gear is given by:

NWm
R NLDG = (23)
L

Considering the RRV and its values, Eq. (23) becomes:

3 ⋅ 20000 ⋅ 0 . 264
R NLDG = = 6000 [ N ] (24)
2 . 64

Referring to Fig. 27, in case of deceleration after touchdown, considering the force generated by the brakes of
main landing gear’s wheels and applied to the wheels where there is contact with ground, we have a deceleration X
and therefore a force of inertia given by:

− m X = Fbreaking (25)

Referring to Fig. 27, the equation of the moment with respect to contact point between ground and the wheels of
the main landing gear, we get to the relationship which expresses the load acting on the Nose Landing Gear (that has
to be summed to the static load):
 18

W XH
∆ R NLDG = (26)
gL

Introducing the values of RRV and assuming a maximum deceleration during breaking equal to 5 m/s2, Eq. (26)
becomes:

2000 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 1 . 4
R NLDG = = 5300 [ N ] (27)
2 . 64

which has the same order of magnitude of Eq. (25), but, unlike Eq. (25), this load always occurs whenever the
vehicle lands. As the value assumed for the deceleration is not high, a drag chute able to generate a much higher
deceleration may be adopted, as in case of the X 37. The drag chute may be a good solution also because it would
not overload the Nose Landing Gear, as the force that it generates is applied to the vehicle’s CoG and not to the
ground. In case the drag chute is installed on board the vehicle, the wheels of the Main Landing Gear are anyway
equipped with brakes that can be used at low
speed, when the drag chute is not operative
anymore. In order to absorb these loads and thus
to damp the related energy, as already mentioned,
the Nose Landing Gear cannot be a Leaf Spring.
However, aiming at avoiding fluidic systems and
pursuing simple, and therefore reliable and
affordable, solutions, also for the Nose Landing
Gear we have considered the use of a “rubber
spring shock absorber”. This system consists of
rubber disks, which compress elastically to absorb
the energy and then, thanks to the hysteresis of
the rubber, damp it, are relatively common for
light aircraft (see Fig. 28). Their shock absorber Figure 27. Deceleration load on Nose Landing Gear
efficiency is a little bit higher than that of metallic
spring (efficiency=0,6), but, unlike other systems
like air or oleo/pneumatic spring, rubber spring shock absorbers do not have any sealing problems and are therefore
highly reliable. As an alternative, particularly to avoid problems that may arise for rubber disks because of the space
environment, we believe that a promising solution may be the use of systems with nest spring generating internal dry
friction. Against the disadvantage of having a damping not proportional to the speed of compression/extension of the
shock absorber, these systems are very simple and reliable and were largely used in the past in the automotive field
as well as in the aeronautical field, where there were few significant applications, like the shock absorber
“Kronprinz” of the Ju 87 “Stuka” vehicle (made of aligned metallic rings, which, deforming under compression,
generate friction and therefore dissipation of energy, see Fig. 29)).

Figure 28. Rubber discs shock absorber (Ref. 3) Figure 29. Dry friction shock absorber (Ref. 8)
 19

D. Landing Gear Integration with the Vehicle

In order to complete the study, we have performed an activity of system integration of the proposed landing gear
with the hypothesized Reference Reentry Vehicle (RRV). The Leaf Spring Main Landing Gear is stowed in a very
small cavity when retracted. This is the smallest cavity that we can have, considering all various types of landing
gear. As Fig. 30 shows, the retracted landing gear is stowed into a cavity exactly equal to the metallic plate, where
there is the leaf spring, and into another cavity exactly equal to the volume of the wheel, where there is the wheel
itself. The landing gear, when retracted, has the least effect on the airframe structure, as there is no need to create
great cavity into the vehicle’s primary structure. In order to have the retracted landing gear configuration, shown in
Fig. 30, the kinematics of the landing gear extension has to be equipped with hinges, which allow the wheel to be
correctly positioned and the leaf spring to rotate at least along two planes. It is worth remembering that, as this type
of vehicles does not take-off in a traditional way but it is lifted off by a launcher vehicle, the kinematics of the
landing gear extension does not have to be able to retract the landing gear. Therefore the kinematics for the landing
gear extension may be activated by a system of springs that allow the extended landing gear to be located and
blocked into a definitive position. Moreover it has to be considered the favorable effect for the landing gear
extension of the aerodynamic and gravity forces, which generate torques that help the landing gear extension.
Also for the Nose Landing Gear the aerodynamic forces favorably contribute to its extension, thanks to the type of
mechanism that has been chosen. The same considerations made for the Main Landing Gear elements still apply.
There are springs that make the system move. These springs allow the leg of the Nose Landing Gear to be opened
and the wheel to be correctly positioned (when stowed in the fuselage, the wheel is rotated in order to reduce the
necessary cavity, see Fig. 30). If the wheel of the Nose Landing Gear had been stowed parallel to the bottom surface
of the fuselage, the cavity of the retracted landing gear would have been smaller. However this solution has been
discarded, as a failure of the mechanism for the correct wheel positioning is critical for landing. The chosen
configuration guarantees a successful landing, even if, in case of failure, the wheel mechanism is jammed.
Figure 30 shows the main structural layout of the fuselage. It consists of frames connected by longitudinal stringers,
which give the airframe the necessary stiffness. The main landing gear is attached to one spar frame, where is also
attached one main wing spar. Also the Nose Landing Gear is attached to one fuselage bulkhead. Bulkheads are also
shaped in such a way to allow the integration of the landing gear inside the fuselage. It is worth noting that the
retracted configuration of the landing gear has the leas effect on the airframe structure, if we consider an original
design of the vehicle without landing gears9,10. The wheels of the Main Landing Gear are stowed into a cavity
between two bulkheads, in order not to affect badly the vehicle’s structural configuration.
As far as the weight of the landing gear is concerned, a good estimation is possible also if a detailed design has not
be performed. In particular the weight estimation of the leaf spring is possible with good approximation considering
that the analytical design has been confirmed by the numerical FEM analysis. The weight of the leaf spring is 2 x 28
kg to which the weight of the wheels (7-8 kg) and of the deploying mechanism (10 kg) must be added. Thus, the
total weight of the main landing gear results 74 kg. Considering that, usually, the weight of the nose landing gear
results about the 20 - 25 % of the total weight, a good estimation of the nose landing gear weight is 100 kg. This is
the 2 % of the total aircraft weight, thus fully plausible11-14.
 20

Figure 30 Landing Gear integraation with thee vehicle

VI.Conclussion
The estimation
e of the weight of
o the landing g gear for RR RV is coheren nt with the staate of the artt of aerospacee
technologgy, notwithstaanding the unu
usual innovatiive solution. We
W believe th hat this study pproves the feaasibility of thee
proposedd solution andd we think thaat more detailled analyses are
a worthwhille. The propo osed solution appears to bee
simple and
a therefore reliable and affordable. Moreover
M it seems
s to havee the least efffect on the design of thee
remaining parts of the vehicle, the least
l effect in
n terms of limiited required cavity to stoww the landing gear elementss
when rettracted and off limited consstraints on thee optimal shaape of the veh hicle’s structuure to match requirements.
Taking innto account aall advantagess that can com me from the adoption for a technologyy demonstratorr of a reentry y
vehicle of
o the landing gear, we do hope
h that we have
h contributeed to reach thee goal.

Acknowledgments
The authors
a wish tot thank Fedeerico Massobrrio of Thales Alenia Spacee-Italy for thee fruitful exch
hange of ideass
and interesting scientiffic discussionss.

Referen
nces
1
Chiessa S., Camatti DD., Corpino S., Pasquino M., Viola
V N., “Affoordable Technological Demonstrator for Hypersonic Flight,””
4th Internaational Seminarr on RRDPAE, Warsaw, Dec. 2000. 2
2
Chiessa S., Grassi M.,
M Russo G., Teofilatto
T P. “A
A Small-Scale LLow-Cost Techhnology Demonnstrator of a Reeusable Launchh
Vehicle,” 13th AIAA/CIR RA Internationa al Space Planes and Hypersoniic Systems and Technologies CConference, 16--20 May 2005.
3
Curreey, N. S., Airccraft Landing Gear Design: Principles andd Practices, AIIAA Educationn Series, 2nd ed., e AIAA Inc.,
Washingto on, DC, 1988, C Chaps 5.5. p 855.
4
Pazm
many L., Landinng Gear Design for Light Aircrraft Vol.1, Pazm many Aircraft Corporation,
C Sann Diego, 1986, Chap 10 p 152.
5
Roskkam, J., Airplanne Design - Parrt 4: Layout Deesign Of Landinng Gear And Systems,
Sy 2nd ed.,, Design Analy
ysis & Researchh
Co., Ottaw wa, 1989.
6
Rohrbbach, K, Schmiidt, M., Properrties and Selecttion: Irons, Steeels, and High-P
Performance Allloys, ASM Han ndbook, Vol. 1,
th
10 ed.. ASMA Internationnal, Ohio, 19933.
7
Cardiile, D., Viola, N., Chiesa, S., Rougier, A.,, “Applied Design Methodology for Lunarr Rover Elasticc Wheel,” Actaa
Astronauttica 81, 2012, ppp. 1-11.
 21

8
Gabrielli, G., Lezioni Sulla Scienza Del Progetto Degli Aeromobili, Vol. II, Ed. Levrotto & Bella, Torino, 1975.
9
Carrera, E., Chiesa, S., Corpino, S., “Manufacturing and Economic Constraints on the Structural Design of a Reduced-Sized
Technological Demonstrator,” 24th ICAS Congress, Yokohama, Aug.-Sept. 2004.
10
Chiesa, S., Carrera, E., Corpino, S., Triffiletti, S., Russo, G., Curreri, F., “Comparison of Various Structural Solutions for a
Reduced-Sized Technological Demonstrator,” 13th AIAA/CIRA International Space Planes And Hypersonic Systems And
Technologies Conference, May 2005.
11
Chiesa, S., Maggiore, P., "Hypersonic Aircraft Conceptual Design Methodology," 19th Congress Of ICAS, Anaheim,
California, Sept. 1994.
12
Antona, E., Chiesa, S., Corpino, S., Viola, N., “L’Avamprogetto dei Velivoli,” Atti Dell’accademia Delle Scienze Di
Torino, Torino, 2009.
13
Chiesa, S., Viola, N., “Sub-Systems Equipments Weight and Volume First Estimation, a Tool for Aircraft Conceptual
Design,” International Journal Of Mechanics and Control, Vol. 08, No 01, Jul 2007.
14
Chiesa, S., Fioriti, M., Viola, N., Methodology For An Integrated Definition Of A System And Its Subsystems: The Case-
Study Of An Airplane And Its Subsystems, Systems Engineering - Practice And Theory, Intech, 2012.